P L D 2026 Sindh 242 (PLP)

DR. SYED FIAZ UL HASAN SHAH, J.

By this common Order, I dispose the above three Criminal Revision Applications filed against the Order dated 26.8.2025 (impugned Order) passed by learned Special Judge (Central-I), Karachi South (Trial Court) while rejecting to accept the Charge Sheet presented by the IO, PS CTW, FIA, Karachi in Crime Nos.01/2024 02/2024 and 03/2025 and directed to present the said charge sheet before the competent court under various provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PCA), the Foreigners Act, 1946 (FA), and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.).

2. Facts of Cr. Revision Application No.201 of 2025 are that the applicant has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 01/2024, registered under Sections 6, 8, and 10 of the PECA, read with Section 30 of the NADRA, Section 5(2) of the PCA, Section 14 of the FA, and Sections 34, 109, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 409 of the P.P.C., at Police Station FIA Cyber Terrorism Wing (CTW), Karachi. The Embassy of Afghanistan in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia forwarded a total of 12,096 surrendered Pakistani ordinary passports to the Embassy of Pakistan in Riyadh. These passports were handed over to Saudi authorities by Afghan nationals who had previously obtained them. Upon scrutiny of these surrendered passports, it was revealed that a substantial number-7,613 passports-had been fraudulently obtained by non-nationals who, in collusion with officials of NADRA and IMPASS, had secured Pakistani CNICs and passports. This large-scale identity fraud has adversely impacted Pakistan's international reputation. Pursuant to the unauthorized access and manipulation of NADRA's sensitive data infrastructure, in violation of its registration policies, NADRA lodged official complaints against its involved officers and staff. This led to the initiation of Inquiry No. E-58/2023 on December 16, 2023.

3. During the inquiry, it was discovered that one Salam Ullah Khan, son of Abdul Salam, CNIC No. 42101-8753953-3, resident of House No. D-455, Block Q. North Nazimabad, Karachi, holding ERP No. 9682, who previously served as the Superintendent and Officer In-Charge (OIC) of the NADRA Center in Baldia Town, Karachi, had fraudulently approved 88 CNICs for non-nationals. These actions were carried out dishonestly and with the intent of unlawful financial gain, in violation of NADRA's official procedures and policies. He acted in connivance with several other NADRA employees, including Ghulam Muhammad Khan (ERP10656), Yasir Rasheed (ERP31374), and Syed Rashid Hussain (ERP11856), along with fraudulent family heads, attesters, and other unidentified persons. The collective actions of these accused individuals amount to cognizable offences punishable under the aforementioned statutory provisions.

4. As a result, a formal case has been registered with the approval of the competent authority. The matter is currently under investigation by Mr. Waqas Ahmed Jat, Assistant Director, FIA Cyber Terrorism Wing Karachi. Copies of the FIR have been duly dispatched to the relevant authorities. Following the registration of the FIR, the applicant/accused obtained interim bail and has been regularly appearing before the Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, where trial proceedings are ongoing. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has also submitted the final charge sheet before the learned trial court which was declined through the impugned Order.

5. Facts of Cr. Revision Application No.202 of 2025: The applicants have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2024, registered under Sections 6, 8, and 10 of the PECA, 2016, read with Section 30 of the NADRA, 2000, Section 5(2) of the PCA, 1947, Section 14 of the FA, and Sections 109, 419, 420, 468, 471, 409, and 34 of the P.P.C., at Police Station FIA Cyber Terrorism Wing (CTW), Karachi. The contents of the FIR are summarized that the Embassy of Afghanistan in Saudi Arabia forwarded 12,096 surrendered Pakistani ordinary passports to the Embassy of Pakistan in Riyadh. These passports had been handed over to Saudi authorities by Afghan nationals. Upon scrutiny, it was discovered that a substantial number−7,613 passports−had been fraudulently obtained by non-nationals who had acquired Pakistani CNICs and passports in collusion with officials of NADRA and IMPASS. This large-scale identity fraud adversely affected Pakistan's international reputation. This breach involved unauthorized access and manipulation of NADRA's critical information infrastructure and a violation of its registration policies. As a result, NADRA filed formal complaints against the involved officers and staff, leading to the initiation of Enquiry No. E-58/2023 on December 26,2023.

6. During the inquiry, it was revealed that the accused Abdul Qadeer, son of Ghafoor Ahmed (CNIC No. 52301-0315515-9), resident of House No. 5, 5th Floor, Shah Apartments, Noor Ellahi Road, Eight Chowk, Lyari, Karachi, holding ERP No. 13022 and serving as the former Deputy Assistant Director/Officer In-Charge (OIC) of NADRA Centers in Lyari and Kemari, Karachi, was involved in this fraudulent approval of 52 CNICs for non-nationals. This fraudulent activity was committed with dishonest intent for illegal gain and in violation of NADRA's official registration policy. The acts were carried out in collaboration with other NADRA officials and staff, including: i. Yasmeen, daughter of Muhammad Qasim (ERP28290), CNIC No. 42301-0729779-7, resident of Gali No. 03, Usmanabad, Major Abdul Rehman Road, Alada Market, Lyari, Karachi; ii. Muhammad Ali Khan, son of Noor Jamal (ERP No. 6636), CNIC No. 42301-0820041-0, resident of Mughal Cottages, Flat No. 03, Street No. − (sic), Lyari, Karachi; and other fraudulent family heads, attesters, and facilitators.

7. The above-named individuals, through their collective acts, prima facie committed offenc s punishable under Sections 6, 8, and 10 of PECA 2016, read with Section 30 of the NADRA. 2000, Section 5(2) P.C.A. 1947, Section 14 of the FA, 1946, and Sections 34, 109, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 409 of P.P.C. A case has accordingly been established against them with the approval of the competent authority, and copies of the FIR have been dispatched to the concerned authorities. Following their arrest, the applicants obtained bail and have since been regularly appearing before the Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, where they are facing trial. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has also submitted the final charge sheet before the learned trial court. However, the learned Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, vide its impugned order dated 26.08.2025, holding that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court.

8. Facts of Cr. Revision Application No.204 of 2025: The Applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No.03/2025, registered under Sections 6, 8, and 10 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), read with Section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, Section 5(2) of the Pakistan Control of Entry Act, 1947, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 109, 419, 420, 468, 471, 409, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station FIA Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW), Karachi. The FIR was registered on the basis of Enquiry No. 11/2021 conducted by FIA CTW, Karachi, initiated upon credible information that the Applicants, namely Akhter Muhammad and Muhammad Yousuf, both originally Afghan nationals from the Paktika province, were illegally residing in Pakistan and involved in criminal activities including money laundering, terrorist financing, and fraudulent acquisition of Pakistani identity documents in connivance with NADRA officials.

9. During the enquiry, it was revealed that the Applicants fraudulently obtained Pakistani CNICs using forged documents and false familial associations. Akhter Muhammad obtained CNIC No. 42301-8626262-9 using the manual NIC of a minor by bribing NADRA officials. Muhammad Yousuf also acquired CNIC No. 42301-1079816-7 without providing requisite documentary proof. Further, Toofan Khan, son of Muhammad Yousuf, also fraudulently obtained a CNIC with the active assistance of NADRA staff, who processed and approved his CNIC application based on fake attestations. The enquiry further claimed that the Applicants had been operating multiple bank accounts under the guise of a cloth business to carry out illegal transactions, including hundi/hawala operations and terrorist financing, and had frequent travel history to and from Afghanistan using fraudulently obtained CNICS. Based on the above findings, a formal FIR was registered with the approval of the Director CTW, FIA Headquarters, Islamabad. Subsequently, the Applicants were granted bail and began facing trial before the Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, where the FIA also submitted a charge sheet. However, the learned trial court declined to accept the said charge sheet and, vide its impugned order dated 26.08.2025, transferred the FIR for trial to the District Court, holding that the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court (Central).

10. I have heard the Counsel for the Applicant and the Assistant Attorney General assisted by the Investigation Officer. Following substantial questions of Law arises: i. Whether joint trial for same transaction or same series of transaction does not overrides jurisdictional exclusivity conferred by special laws (e.g., PECA 2016, PCA 1947) or in other words, can it bypass judicial restraint when statute(s) declared "designated court" ii. Whether joint trial for same transaction or same series of transaction under Section 235 Cr.P.C. for different special statutes can be done? iii. Whether separate trials for offences under different special laws arising from the same transaction violate Doctrine of Double jeopardy protections under Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the provisions of Section 71, P.P.C., 1860 and Section 403 Cr. P.C 1898? iv. Whether separate trial the right to a fair trial Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 affect due to harassment from multiplied proceedings or doctrine of conflict of findings?

11. The term "same transaction" or "same serious of transaction" refers to a series of acts or offences that are so closely related to aid in factual determination. The courts have developed four key criteria to aid in this factual determination: (1) Proximity of Time − Temporal closeness of the acts, (2) Unity or Proximity of Place − Geographic relation of the occurrences, (3) Continuity of Action − Uninterrupted or logically connected acts and (4) Community of Purpose or Design − Shared intention or objective that form part of a single, coherent criminal episode. These criteria are not conclusive in isolation but are collectively assessed to determine whether the offences are so interlinked as to constitute one transaction. It is not governed by a strict legal formula but is instead determined on a case-by-case basis, with courts applying the real and substantial test−asking whether the acts are related in purpose, as cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary acts, such that they constitute one continuous action. Where such a connection exists, the acts may be tried together as part of the same transaction for procedural efficiency and judicial coherence.

13. In contrast, where multiple special statutes are attracted in relation to the same transaction or a series of interconnected transactions, a distinct legal challenge arises. This occurs when the "same transaction" falls simultaneously within the purview of more than one special statute, thereby necessitating judicial determination of the primary issue of "jurisdiction" for trial or joint trial. Such circumstances introduce legal complexity, as often each special statute mandates that offences falling under its ambit be tried exclusively by a "designated court", thereby complicating the procedural framework and raising questions of forum compatibility and statutory primacy.

14. The concept of "same transaction" hold significant importance in criminal jurisprudence, particularly in the context of joinder of charges and joint trials under criminal procedural laws and multiple offences, though distinct in nature or time, can collectively be tried in a single proceeding, neither in the statutes nor the juridical precedents have fixed a determinative formula and such legal position does not depend upon any Universal Formula rather completely dependent upon a case-by-case approach.

15. The power to conduct a joint trial does not arise from substantive statutes but from procedural law-specifically, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). Unless a special law explicitly excludes this procedural competence, Section 235 Cr.P.C. governs the permissibility of joint trials. Subsection (1) Permits a single trial for multiple offences committed in one series of acts so connected as to form the same transaction and Subsection (2) allows a joint trial where the same acts constitute offences under two or more separate legal definitions. Each offence must independently satisfy its own actus reus (physical act) and mens rea (mental intent). However, where the factual circumstances reveal that multiple offences under PECA, PPC, NADRA Ordinance, and anti-corruption laws arose from a single, continuous transaction, a joint trial is legally permissible.

16. As observed in Raj Bahadur v. Emperor (1935 Cr.LJ 1496), the courts have refrained from laying down a rigid or comprehensive formula for determining what constitutes the same transaction. Instead, the determination must rest on the facts and circumstances of each case. This test aligns with the principles of fair trial by preventing piecemeal litigation and multiplicity of proceedings where a single, integrated criminal enterprise is involved. In Muhammad Mosaddar Haque and Muhammad Abdul Rouf v. The State (PLD 1958 SC 131), the Supreme Court elevated community of purpose and continuity of action as essential (sine qua non) elements for treating separate acts as one transaction. Without these elements, the linkage fails, and the acts must be treated as distinct offences, each requiring separate adjudication. This approach maintains a balance between judicial efficiency and individual fairness, ensuring that accused persons are not unfairly prejudiced by the joinder of unrelated charges or events. In Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595), the Supreme Court conclusively held that only one FIR shall be registered for offences committed in one transaction. The investigation must be comprehensive, covering all angles and offences arising from that occurrence. This principle forms the jurisprudential foundation for consolidated trials.

17. The Special Court (Central), constituted under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, is empowered exclusively to try offences listed in the Schedule to the said Act. These are primarily corruption-related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.). The said Act, 1958 prohibit other than special court to try any offence specified in the schedule. A plain reading of Section 5 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 read as: "

5. Offenses to be tried by special Judges (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or in any other law, the offences specified in the schedule shall be tribal exclusively by a Special Judge."

18. A careful reading of the relevant provision of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 reveals that it contains a non-obstante clause, which overrides any conflicting provisions within the statute. The proviso therein imposes a specific embargo on the trial of scheduled offences by any court other than the Special Judge appointed under the Act. This exclusivity ensures that only the Special Judge may try offences listed in the Schedule. However, no express prohibition exists within the statuse that bars the Special Judge from trying non-scheduled offences, provided such offences are factually and transactionally connected to the scheduled offences. In the absence of a statutory restriction, and guided by the principle embedded in Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Special Judge may lawfully try offences which may attract or invoke under other statutes such as PECA, PPC, or NADRA Ordinance−if they form part of the same transaction as the scheduled corruption offence. Conversely, a court designated solely under PECA lacks jurisdiction to try offences under the PCA or other corruption statutes unless expressly empowered by law.

19. On careful examination of the statutes PECA, NADRA, FA, PPC and the PCA, do not contain any express prohibition against joint trials with offences under other laws. Therefore, the general provisions of Cr.P.C. remain applicable. The legislative intent, as inferred from the structure and language of the ibid Act, 1958, empowers the Special Judge to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over scheduled offences while permitting-through procedural law a joint trial of connected non-scheduled offences arising from the same transaction. This interpretive harmony between the substantive and procedural law ensures judicial efficiency and respects the principle laid down in Sughran Bibi (supra) mandates a unified investigation and trial for offences committed in a single occurrence.

20. It also avoids the doctrine of Double jeopardy as enshrined under Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, doctrine of conflict of findings in case of trial by different courts and aspiration of section 71 P.P.C. and 403 Cr.P.C.

21. The application of the "One Transaction" test to invoke Section 235 Cr.P.C., the offences must be connected in time, purpose, and continuity of action. For example, if a PECA offence (e.g., digital manipulation of records) was committed to facilitate a corruption offence (e.g., securing a bribe), the entire case qualifies as a single transaction. In such cases, the corruption offence is the primary scheduled offence under the said Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 while the PECA offence is a predicate or ancillary offence together with related PPC, NADRA, FA offences, these statutes collectively form a unified transaction with common motives "dirty money" by abusing official position or misuse of authority, therefore, it is triable by the Special Judge under Section 5(7) of the ibid Act, 1958.

22. Consequently, the Revision Applications are allowed and impugned Order are set aside with directions to the trial Court to rehear the Prosecutor and Investigation Officer and pass fresh order in the light of above legal proposition.

23. Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 201, 202 and 204 of 2025 stand disposed of. JK/S-9/Sindh Revisions allowed.